4.6 Article

Stent-in-stent technique for removal of embedded partially covered self-expanding metal stents

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4475-4

Keywords

Anastomotic perforation or leak; Esophageal strictures; Embedded stents; Esophageal cancer; Endoscopic stents; Advanced therapeutic endoscopy

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [P30DK058404]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Removal of embedded partially covered self-expanding metal stents (PCSEMS) is associated with an increased risk of adverse events compared with removal of fully covered self-expanding stents (FCSES) due to tissue ingrowth. Successful removal of embedded PCSEMS has been described by the stent-in-stent (SIS) technique. Aims To report the first US experience from three high-volume quaternary care centers on the safety and efficacy of the SIS technique for removal of embedded PCSEMS. Methods Retrospective study of outcomes for consecutive patients who underwent the SIS for removal of embedded PCSEMS over a 5-year period. Results Twenty-seven embedded PCSEMS were successfully removed using the SIS technique (100 %) from 25 patients (11 males), median age 65 (range 37-80). All stents were successfully removed in one endoscopic session (no repeat SIS procedures were required for persistently embedded stents). The embedded PCSEMS had been in situ for a median of 76 days (range 26-501). Median SIS dwell time (FCSES in situ of PCSEMS) was 13 days (interquartile range 8-16 days; range 4-212 days). One adverse event (self-limited bleeding) occurred during a median follow-up period of 3 months (range 1-32). No patients died, required surgery, or had long-term disability due to adverse events attributed to the SIS technique. Twelve patients required additional interventions following SIS procedure for persistence or recurrence of the underlying pathology. Conclusion When performed by experienced endoscopists, safe and effective removal of embedded PCSEMS can be achieved via the SIS technique.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available